"Input less, output more" and interleaving learnig

Following the Steve’s email about “Interleaved learning, interleaving, or why LingQ works so well” on Interleaved Learning, Interleaving, or why LingQ Works so Well - YouTube I found the subject very interesting and did some googling around.
In the top 5 , the is a site with some interesting interviews of Pr Bjork: http://gocognitive.net/interviews/benefits-interleaving-practice
One of those interview seem to be on the opposite on what Steve claim, it’s: “Input less, output more”: GoCognitive - free resoures for students and teachers in the field of cognitiv neuroscience.

In connection with Language learning, I wondering if it means: “read less, speak more” or simply “Read different materials” …

I think there is a difference between learning about a subject, like history or chemistry, and learning a language. The difference has to do with the difference between learning concepts and facts as opposed to learning words. If we are learning concepts and facts in our own language, we have most of the words we need. If we use these words to express concepts and facts, we are getting a better grasp of them. We are also interleaving, since we are dealing with this information in a different way.
When it comes to learning languages, we need to acquire enough words so that we can actually produce the language, and understand what others are saying, in meaningful contexts. Once we achieve that level we need to output more. Until that point, I believe that focusing on input is the easiest way to reach a level of comprehension and vocabulary that makes meaningful communication possible. Varying the content, rather than trying to nail down a lesson or grammar rule, is a form of interleaved learning, or learning and forgetting, of meeting the same patterns in different contexts. As soon as we feel we are capable of using the words we have acquired in a meaningful way, we should do so.

1 Like

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know. But if you listen, you may learn something new” (unattributed)

“Some people believe talking a lot is key. Can be true, but don’t forget that talking a lot means repeating your own mistakes all the time. Then it becomes harder and harder to get rid if them. Talking a lot works only if you pay a lot of attention to listening all the time and always assume that you’re still missing something.” (Gaudfroy)

Note, also, that all natives spend years focused on input first, followed by increasing output after 5-10 years. There is really no exception to this. Yet a lot of second language learning focuses on writing early in order to pass tests, or “speak from day 1” type marketing scams and nonsense.

No one has really done much work on interleaving and language learning, and the work that has been done is pretty limited.

Mostly, interleaving appears as a sensible argument for “mixing it up” and “keeping things interesting/varied”.

For example; mix up the content level (interleaving “easy natural” with “hard native” content), mix up the material or medium (interleaving tv, radio, magazines, forums, chatting, different lingq courses etc), switch language activity (interleaving reading/listening/writing/speaking), interleave formal and informal registers, mix up language type (interleaving between different languages over various time frames) etc.

Interleaving is also, sometimes, contrasted against; anki/srs/flashcarding massed practices, massed sentence M-CCD type materials, grammar learning massed practices, artificial drilling, a focus on one main learning activity (speaking your way to “Benny-fluency”) etc.

However, sometimes, perceived “good” learning at lingq, like – listening and reading to varied content - can often become a massed practice of just listening to, and reading, similar content, with diminishing returns. Additionally, constantly changing up, or mixing in, learning such as; a quick grammar review, frequent skype chats, essay writing etc, often will have benefits.

In many ways it is just another argument for learning like a native. Organically …eclectically …not like an automaton in a classroom.

Personally, I prefer mixing up “easy natural” dialogues, with varied native content. And for the native content to come mostly from chat radio - that has a mix of topics delivered in a rapid-fire “earthy” manner. I also prefer techniques like “reflection” and “elaboration” as learning tools, which are under-rated, imo.

1 Like

Chemistry student here. Yes, there definitely is a contrast between the two. Languages and sciences.

In chemistry, I can logically derive an answer through a few memorized concepts and definitions, whereas, I can’t exactly apply the same critical thinking in language learning.
There doesn’t seem to be a way I can logically solve an unknown word or its meaning. Yes, I can use old thinking to see if a word resembles this, but it becomes the point where it’s just better to relearn it and treat it like a new word and eventually it all ties together.

Practicing science problems and language are related to some degree: exposure and volume, but I think language relies more on pure repetition/volume vs. chemistry.

I do try to use my critical thinking skills to learn grammar. I pick up on patterns then reference them from a grammar site or book. That’s just me though. Grammar is boring but at the same time a giant puzzle. I like puzzles.